Something Fishy About The Global Flood

Something has just occurred to me, and its repercussions are quite large if you think about it.

When the global flood is debated, YECs and "evolutionists" often talk about how life, in the fossil record, is graduated. Mainstream scientists say this, if evidence of anything, is evidence of evolutionary change over the earth's history. Macrevolutionary events etc. Creationists, on the other hand, dont have a good answer. Why is the fossil record so clean cut?

Mammals above a certain depth. Reptiles above another. Amphibians above another. There is overlap, of course, but nothing that could disprove evolutionary logic. Just add to it. There are not, as someone famously said (whose name temporarily escapes me) rabbits in the precambian.

Surely, given a global flood, we would see, not only a worldwide, single strata of flood geology (as we see, with, well, floods), but also a disorded pile of fossils.

The fossil record is not organised according to a given organism's mass.The fossil record is not organised according to a given organism's ability to swim or survive underwater.The fossil record is not organised according to labels we give to modern geography

These are the kind of answers YEC often resort to. Ive even read something about the fossil record being ordered according to how god liked the organism in question.

....Yet the fossil record is still organised according to something.

Think about it like this:

The fossil record is organised according to the history of changes in DNA.

that happens to be true, by the way.

You will find, in modern species, and even in so called "living fossils", that they have acquired the DNA of a species below them. It is never the other way around.

Quite why the flood waters were able to deposit corpses based on the heirachy in DNA is a mystery.

Pick the bones out of that one me dears

Edit: Pushing the rules by using near cuss words where they are not needed, means you won't last long here.

According to what? Surely you did'nt observe any of these supposed changes in DNA,I have'nt even seen any of the predicted transitional fossils.

The fossil record does follow a pattern,but not one that supports evolution. It follows a pattern of created kinds sorted by ecological levels and environments. If you know of a spot where we can observe these 'so called' changes without assuming or piecing it together by circular reasoning,then please share this location and we'll look at the fossils.

Something has just occurred to me, and its repercussions are quite large if you think about it.When the global flood is debated, YECs and "evolutionists" often talk about how life, in the fossil record, is graduated. Mainstream scientists say this, if evidence of anything, is evidence of evolutionary change over the earth's history. Macrevolutionary events etc. Creationists, on the other hand, dont have a good answer. Why is the fossil record so clean cut?

Mammals above a certain depth. Reptiles above another. Amphibians above another. There is overlap, of course, but nothing that could disprove evolutionary logic. Just add to it. There are not, as someone famously said (whose name temporarily escapes me) rabbits in the precambian.

Surely, given a global flood, we would see, not only a worldwide, single strata of flood geology (as we see, with, well, floods), but also a disorded pile of fossils.

The fossil record is not organised according to a given organism's mass.The fossil record is not organised according to a given organism's ability to swim or survive underwater.The fossil record is not organised according to labels we give to modern geography

These are the kind of answers YEC often resort to.Ã‚Â Ive even read something about the fossil record being ordered according to how god liked the organism in question.

....Yet the fossil record is still organised according to something.Think about it like this:

The fossil record is organised according to the history of changes in DNA.

that happens to be true, by the way.

You will find, in modern species, and even in so called "living fossils", that they have acquired the DNA of a species below them. It is never the other way around.

Quite why the flood waters were able to deposit corpses based on the heirachy in DNA is a mystery.

Pick the bones out of that one me dears

Have you ever been to a fossil dig? If we find marine fossils in the mountains then the earth supposedly uplifted--so please--it's all fit into the timescale and spoon fed to you via the universities and textbooks.

I've often wondered if Lyell would have discovered whale fossils in the desert--would he have written all that stuff against the flood?

Have you ever been to a fossil dig? If we find marine fossils in the mountains then the earth supposedly uplifted--so please--it's all fit into the timescale and spoon fed to you via the universities and textbooks.

I've often wondered if Lyell would have discovered whale fossils in the desert--would he have written all that stuff against the flood?

The earth does uplift. Ever heard of the Himalaya Mountains? It's actually growing by a few centimeters every year.

So why are the fossils arranged in perfect order? Just like everything else, creationists have no answer.

According to what? Surely you did'nt observe any of these supposed changes in DNA,I have'nt even seen any of the predicted transitional fossils.

The fossil record does follow a pattern,but not one that supports evolution. It follows a pattern of created kinds sorted by ecological levels and environments. If you know of a spot where we can observe these 'so called' changes without assuming or piecing it together by circular reasoning,then please share this location and we'll look at the fossils.

no jason777 that is a completely contradictory position. According to YEC, a worldwide flood occured. A homogenous, worldwide flood. The earth's surface, presumably, would have been mud underwater. So all we would find are flood desposits. We wouldnt find desert sandstones, with wind patterns in.

This position makes even less sense. Somehow the flood was able to characterise and sort ecological niches? Okay, well in that case, african herbivorous mammals should be lower down with african herbivorous dinosaurs (and vice versa), modern day plants should all be buried too, and whales should be down there with other large krill-eaters from the past. You havent thought about your position enough.

It is literally, the most contradiction-ridden argument ive ever considered.

Even in ecology, heavy things sink, and light things float (and not according to how much grass or meat an organism has eaten).

Have you ever been to a fossil dig? If we find marine fossils in the mountains then the earth supposedly uplifted--so please--it's all fit into the timescale and spoon fed to you via the universities and textbooks.

I've often wondered if Lyell would have discovered whale fossils in the desert--would he have written all that stuff against the flood?

Yes the "universities" are just spoon feeding people. They are the enemies of rational YEC.

As Flatland has rightly pointed out, the earth is made from tectonic plates (or do you disagree with that as well?), that move. When these plates collide, they may form a series of boundaries. One of these boundaries, because they are being pushed, forms a fold mountain. The principle is easily demonstrable:

get a sheet of a4 paper. Push the two ends together.

What this means is that the sediments, perviously flat, are now lifted up, seperated from geological processes below. These sediments, in geological past, may well have been formed in tropical seas, deserts, or anywhere else.

A breathtakingly simple process in geology.

Homologies in DNA, YEC says, are evidence of a common designer. So why did the flood waters progressively lay down fossils as they have? DNA progressively changing. Inhereting the characters of a species below and changing.

Why not some other way? If the homology is an irrelevant consequence of creation, then, surely, DNA sequences were irrelevent to the liklihood of being buried?

You will find, in the fossil record, that DNA moves one way - upwards, through time. A species inherits DNA from a species below it, just as a child inherits DNA from a generation below it.

This DNA homology is passed all the way from the eukaryotic cells to...

<Amphibians <Reptiles<Mammals <Birds...<Primates <You and me

So, how were the flood waters able to progessively deposit fossils based on the contents of their DNA?

no jason777 that is a completely contradictory position. According to YEC, a worldwide flood occured. A homogenous, worldwide flood. The earth's surface, presumably, would have been mud underwater. So all we would find are flood desposits. We wouldnt find desert sandstones, with wind patterns in.

We would find global layers of chalk formed from a mass kill of marine plankton.

This position makes even less sense. Somehow the flood was able to characterise and sort ecological niches? Okay, well in that case, african herbivorous mammals should be lower down with african herbivorous dinosaurs (and vice versa), modern day plants should all be buried too, and whales should be down there with other large krill-eaters from the past. You havent thought about your position enough.

Dinosaurs are cold-blooded and only able to live in tropical niches. Have you ever seen an aligator in Minnesota? Do you think polar bears and dinosaurs should be buried together if they existed at the same time? Why you guys are never able to understand the fundamentals of ecology is beyond me.

Dinosaur and mammal fossils are both found in Africa. Can you find a geologic cross-section and place the fossils in the order you claim they are in? You will have to correlate one layer into the next,because dinosaurs grazed in jungle tree tops and large herbivorous mammals graze in grassy plains,both of which are found in Africa,but not the same spot.

The earth does uplift.Ã‚Â Ever heard of the Himalaya Mountains?Ã‚Â It's actually growing by a few centimeters every year.Ã‚Â

So why are the fossils arranged in perfect order?Ã‚Â Just like everything else, creationists have no answer.

Of course the earth uplifts--my point is that when something is not in order unis just tell a story as to how something got to where it is.

The "fossils are in order" is a totally false charge.

First of all, the fossils are 95% marine and found all over the world--just like a world wide flood would also predict. The flood account was around for testing long before James Hutton. Hutton never saw a whale in the desert, nor the deluge, so he assumed "all things continue the same" just like it was predicted in scripture.

...billions of straight-shelled, chambered nautiloids (figure 2) are found fossilized with other marine creatures in a 7 foot (2 m) thick layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon (figure 1).1 This fossil graveyard stretches for 180 miles (290 km) across northern Arizona and into southern Nevada, covering an area of at least 10,500 square miles (30,000 km2)....

...Hundreds of thousands of marine creatures were buried with amphibians, spiders, scorpions, millipedes, insects, and reptiles in a fossil graveyard at Montceau-les-Mines, France....

So maybe you can explain how billions of nautiloids were quickly buried over over an area of 30,000 km2 x 7 feet deep--15 % are found in an upright position. That's a massive amount of sediment--it would have taken megatons of water to move it quickly.

Maybe you can explain how graveyards are found with so many mixed species in them, both land and marine organisms together.

Third, that's why I asked had the poster ever been to a fossil dig. They've found dinosaur fossils several feet in the dirt. I've seen in it magazines. Why after 65 m years?

Dinosaurs are cold-blooded and only able to live in tropical niches. Have you ever seen an aligator in Minnesota? Do you think polar bears and dinosaurs should be buried together if they existed at the same time? Why you guys are never able to understand the fundamentals of ecology is beyond me.

Dinosaur and mammal fossils are both found in Africa. Can you find a geologic cross-section and place the fossils in the order you claim they are in? You will have to correlate one layer into the next,because dinosaurs grazed in jungle tree tops and large herbivorous mammals graze in grassy plains,both of which are found in Africa,but not the same spot.Enjoy.

Mammals are found in every climate known...in jungles, savannahs, deserts, frozen tundra and the ocean...yet no modern day mammals are ever found in the same stratigraphic layer with dinosaurs.

Biostratigraphy of forams is so precise, that petro-geologist at any point in the globe, can easily identify stratigraphic layers from a core drill.

Forams show a detailed evolutionary development, from the lower strata levels on upward. They are virtually the same size and mass, yet are never intermixed between strata levels. It would be impossible for a flood to lay these microscopic fossils down an such a precise order.

Mammals are found in every climate known...in jungles, savannahs, deserts, frozen tundra and the ocean...yet no modern day mammals are ever found in the same stratigraphic layer with dinosaurs.

Thats an equivocation. Even the platypus goes all the way back to 100+ million years. Just because it demonstrates variation does'nt mean it's not a platypus.

Biostratigraphy of forams is so precise, that petro-geologist at any point in the globe, can easily identify stratigraphic layers from a core drill.

They said the same thing about paleozoic graptolites.

Graptolites, Sue Rigby, British Geol. Survey, "All paleontologist dream of finding a 'living fossil.' Noel Dilly, it seems has done so... As graptolites are arguably the most important zone fossils of the Lower Palaeozoic (570-360 MYBP), this is far from an esoteric issue." Nature, Vol.363, p.209, 3/18/'93.

And how about Neopilina?

Niles Eldridge, "...were thought to have been extinct by the end of the Middle Devonian [385 MYA]. Modern Neopilina species, however, were dredged from the deep oceans in the 1950Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s..." Fossils, 1991, p.101.

Forams show a detailed evolutionary development, from the lower strata levels on upward. They are virtually the same size and mass, yet are never intermixed between strata levels. It would be impossible for a flood to lay these microscopic fossils down an such a precise order.

Perhaps you could show us some of those if you have time. I prefer not to comment on something I can't see or verify. And what do mean by lower strata and up? Cambrian to present?

Animal graveyards are not uncommon. They typically consist of animals from a specific era. (i.e. elephant graveyards, dinosaur graveyards)

They are found at natural flood/river trap pockets, tar pits, areas of volcanic activity.

So maybe you can explain how billions of nautiloids were quickly buried over over an area of 30,000 km2 x 7 feet deep--15 % are found in an upright position. That's a massive amount of sediment--it would have taken megatons of water to move it quickly.

Austins' numbers are extrapolated from what he counted on the nautilous canyon walls, and are pure speculation. The natiloids that he examined were all mostly intact (could such a turbulent flood have done that?). What about the possibility that the nautilods in the Nautilous Canyon formation were from a local flood event?

Maybe you can explain how graveyards are found with so many mixed species in them, both land and marine organisms together.

Dinosaurs are cold-blooded and only able to live in tropical niches. Have you ever seen an aligator in Minnesota? Do you think polar bears and dinosaurs should be buried together if they existed at the same time? Why you guys are never able to understand the fundamentals of ecology is beyond me.

Dinosaur and mammal fossils are both found in Africa. Can you find a geologic cross-section and place the fossils in the order you claim they are in? You will have to correlate one layer into the next,because dinosaurs grazed in jungle tree tops and large herbivorous mammals graze in grassy plains,both of which are found in Africa,but not the same spot.Enjoy.

Jason, seriously, is that the best YEC can come up with? First of all, Dinosaurs were not "tropical" species. They existed from a whole range of latitudes from the temperate to the equator, and were proportionally adapted. The point is they occupied niches that mammals do today.

Basically, what you are saying, Jason, is that every single extinct species occupied, not only an exclusive niche, but also an exclusive location on the globe, with absolutely no overlap, and the flood just "scoured" them on top of each other. It doesnt matter to you at all that equatorial Dinosaurs would have -did- live alongside equatorial reptiles, mammals, birds, plants and so forth (some of which are still alive today). How can you say:

Why you guys are never able to understand the fundamentals of ecology is beyond me.

when what you are suggesting is entirely devoid of any sort of realistic ecology? However, your are right on one thing: given a global flood, we wouldnt expect fossil polar bears in the same global location as tropical species. We would, however, expect them in the same flood strata.

Even if you were right (you're not), you still havent addressed the question. Why did the flood, with full respect to your point on ecology and location, position the fossils they way it did? Why didnt it put african mammal megafuna below dinosaurs? It doesnt explain why DNA, if extracted downward in the fossil record, shows a regression.

The fossils deposited in your "niche-scouring hypothesis" are still ordered, by complete and perfect co-indicence, according to the progressive homology inherent in DNA.

Secondly, Dinosaurs, were in fact, warm-blooded. Some were gigantotherms, others simply had a higher metabolic rate. It has long since been realised that cold-blooded animals can only grow to a certain shape and size because the sun, low latitude or not, simply cannot heat enough body area.

A 1cm square cube might be heated thoroughly by the sun. A 40cm square cube will not be.

Large dinosaurs were gigantotherms meaning that their sheer size allowed heat to remain inside the body (just like sea turtles); they were warm blooded, and so were more active then other reptiles. Smaller dinosaurs also likely had a higher (birdlike) metabolic rate then other reptiles, and could thus generate more heat (also observed in a few extant reptiles).

These things really are fundamentals; not just of ecology but of simple physiology.

Also, as ive said, Dinosaurs occupied a whole range of niches. Indeed, most dinosaurs were smaller then a chicken and were adaptable scavengers. Niether did dinosaurs graze in innocuous

jungle tree tops

. Large, herbivorous dinosaurs grazed in open savannah, just life girrafes, and they wouldnt have been able to move through dense vegatation.

We are drifting from the point here. The flood wouldnt have been able to select where to deposit fossils based on their ecological niche or environment. They would ALL be in the same strata. Floods do not deposit desert sandstone one minute, tropical chalk the next, lava flows next, and then sandstone again. It is impossible.

I reiterate: the flood waters have stacked fossils in order of "DNA progression". That is true, regardless of ecology, regardless of geography.

So, how were the flood waters able to deposit fossils based on the contents of their DNA?

Of course, Blood, and Bone marrow has been Found in numerous types fossilized of bones, but then again Red Blood Cells, don't contain DNA. Plus that confirms more YEC evidence because why in the world would those organic substances last for over 65 million years??? Seriously.

DNA progression is so false, that just by looking at the fossils (rock) one can quickly see the illogic in thinking that. Why even begin to think that? Oh we will take modern DNA samples, and test them with Fossilized DNA samples ( which don't exist...). Therefore DNA progression studies based on fossils is pure speculation, and a very huge assumption on the evolutionist part.

Progressive Homology in the DNA of fossils is so fundamentaly false, that I can't even begin to understand why you'd continue on with such an idea. The fossils can't be ordered that way because:

They don't contain DNA.

Also Mcstone your Idea that all dinosaurs were warm-blooded is patently false, because even paleontologist speculate on this, it is not a solid fact, and you know it. Paleontologist debate the Warm-Blooded vs Cold Blooded all the time. Why do they speculate on it? Because they have no solid evidence to test this on.

The T-Rex may have been warm-blooded though, based on the Red Blood cells found in it's bone, which were very bird-like in nature, but the T-Rex has a Bird-Shaped frame, and for many years this has been thought about.

Now, what about Triceratops? What about Diplodocus? Those could've been cold-blooded because we have no evidence to make such claims as ALL dinosaurs being warm-blooded... A few carnivores maybe, and a few herbivores, but certainly not all of them.

Better than interpretations of men--here's the real raw dig. This is a site with alot of pictures of a dinosaur dig. These fossils are found in the dried mud and probably mudstone. The dinosaurs are mixed with other marine life by a river valley. Again, we can argue the formation of the river valley. But it's not hard to imagine that this river valley being a result of the drainage stage of the deluge, cut through mud laid down earlier.

You will notice very little stratification if any, as if this was a thick deposit of mud. Also notice how the bones are twisted, mangled, and broken apart.

Here is a link that goes into the many forms of Forams and their biostratigraphic use.Foram website

Peace

I have seen this strip before. This has been sorted by man. The specimens are not at the point of find. Neither is there any proof that some of these are not the same species suffering from deformation or decay.

have seen this strip before. This has been sorted by man. The specimens are not at the point of find. Neither is there any proof that some of these are not the same species suffering from deformation or decay.

Did you also notice how he ignored the fact that creationists consider the paleocene post-flood strata? I figured that is where he would try to hide a "The flood can't do this" strawman.

Scanman,

The geolgic evidence is strongly against the tertiary strata as being formed by the global flood.

By Dilly's own admission the chemical structure of the graptolite rhabdosome and that of his living fossil is only "similar," not identical.

More equivocation? I guess a poodle is only similar to a dog as well. Why can't you guys just be honest and admit there is no evidence of Graptolite or Foram evolving into anything but slight variations of the original species?